To Believe or Not To Believe? (SHOW RESPECT, OR RISK A BAN) - Part 2

[Apollo]

Oh, no.

The separation of church and state isn't just about the abuse of religion. It's about protecting the rights of people to worship how they choose. The purpose to keep the state from imposing religion was indeed to prevent a particular faith from gaining power...but it was mostly about allowing people of different faiths to be able to continue to worship freely, without fear of the state forcing them to follow a particular faith.

It should also be noted that at the time, the founders did not force states to adopt this law. So while the federal government couldn't force people to worship in services, states could (and did) impose certain religious regulations, up until the late 1800s.

Tempest, I was going to elaborate on this more but You bet me to it! t:

 

[Apollo]

I see. Human torch wasn't the biggest fan of it from what I recall due to the graphic violence. What's your take Apollo?

I think Bill O'reilly said he made the movie so that it comes from the point of view of someone that did not witness Jesus's divinity. He sees him only as a man that had a great following. Therefore since that someone won't see anything out of the ordinary, neither would the audience. So from that point of view the resurrection won't be shown, nor would the miracles, because from that point of view these events happened without that someone knowing they occurred. Therefore the audience would see Jesus from that way too. Not sure if they went that route but that's what I heard. Hence the criticisms from some christian circles. I still have yet to see. So I am not certain how it really plays out.

 

[PacificBoy]

Choice comes as we discover there are other options to consider - > Which can come when you are a kid. I went to public school and watched Tv that consisted of plenty of diversity and information about the world. I grew up in a democratic society. My parents were/are liberal who never really talked about God at all. I never had to go to church. It was my choice. I was never locked up in a black box and had no choices to consider. I grew up with an open mind and still have one. The internet, the library, next store neighbors that spoke different languages and had difference religions also helped tremendously in shaping my childhood. So yes. My childhood allowed me the option to believe what I wanted.

Agree. I was raised Catholic and other than accompanying my parents to Sunday mass up till my late teens I had the freedom to explore my religious options. Certainly wasn't restrictive. I saw it as educational and it served as a springboard for discussion when chatting with kids and folks from other religions. It's a matter of upbringing than anything.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Yes same here. When I was 7 I had a tremendous fascination with dinosaurs and space. Science really interested me and still does. In fact science went hand in hand with my fascination with religions ideas. Yet I have no problem with believing in a higher power.

Do you ever think that God has made it so that even in 10,000 years of scientific advancement from now we still won't be able to disprove or prove God? In that being hidden is actually important to God's grand design? Like Christ said that God has hidden himself so well that he would only be revealed to little children.

To me what us human's call science is all apart of his design. I don't think God would revel himself in science to people who minds and hearts aren't open to him. Like if there are people out there looking for scientific facts to disprove God's existence, I highly doubt they will ever find anything solid. But maybe he would allow science to prove his existence at some point. I think God will only reveal himself to people who are genuinely seeking him. Like when I see people at who are lost or broken and they respond to the alter call at my church and you sometimes see the emotions that run through those people and how their lives are changed from that point on , that's real to me. That's more valid to me than any scientific discovery that people may find.

 

[Greens]

Like if there are people out there looking for scientific facts to disprove God's existence, I highly doubt they will ever find anything solid.

That's not how science works, though. Scientists don't go around trying to disprove negatives.

 

[Greens]

Somebody, may have been Apollo, said that if parents told their children that God doesn't exist, like the Santa story, that they either keep believing or stop believing. I'm wondering, are there any adults that still believe in Santa Clause? As far as I know, literally every adult stops believing in Santa Clause at a very young age. Parents use logic and reasoning to explain why the Santa story is silly, and children eventually come to accept this. If we did the same for God, I doubt there would be a 50/50 split between believers and non-believers. More like 90/10, or even 100/0.

 

[Marvolo]

Somebody, may have been Apollo, said that if parents told their children that God doesn't exist, like the Santa story, that they either keep believing or stop believing. I'm wondering, are there any adults that still believe in Santa Clause? As far as I know, literally every adult stops believing in Santa Clause at a very young age. Parents use logic and reasoning to explain why the Santa story is silly, and children eventually come to accept this. If we did the same for God, I doubt there would be a 50/50 split between believers and non-believers. More like 90/10, or even 100/0.

The difference is that Western Culture wasnt heavily influenced by Santa Clause and Santa Clause doesnt have a 2,000+ year old religion based around him that claims billions of followers and worshipers. God and religion permeates our lives year round. Churches are everywhere. The bible is everywhere. God is on our money and in our pledge. We see people praying to Him. We see people worshiping him. We hear about people dying for him. Etc. About all the belief in Santa Clause and the belief in God have in common is that the word belief is associated with both, but the belief people have in God is a much deeper and vastly more complicated thing.

Personally I never believed in Santa. My parents tried to do the whole santa thing when I was 3&4 and I kept telling them that Santa wasnt real. I remember Dad trying to convince me that Santa helped him set up my hot wheels track, but I kept saying, "no he didnt santa isnt real, dad." Thats actually one of my oldest memories. I dont remember why my four year old mind was so convinced he wasnt real, but I just didnt believe in Santa. Yet I never had any problem with believing in God and to this day I dont.

 

[Greens]

I resisted when my parents told me the truth about Santa. He IS real! You're LYING! It's an interesting experience.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

That's not how science works, though. Scientists don't go around trying to disprove negatives.

I am just saying that there have been and probably will continue to be atheist out there that try and use scientific evidence to validate their belief that God doesn't exist. In fact, most atheist I enountered bring up all the scienctific theories and discoveries in their arugements , just look at post from non believer ls in this thread for examples. So I don't think it would be out the realm of possibility that an atheist scientist would go looking for scientific facts to back up his beliefs.

 

[Greens]

I am just saying that there have been and probably will continue to be atheist out there that try and use scientific evidence to validate their belief that God doesn't exist. In fact, most atheist I enountered bring up all the scienctific theories and discoveries in their arugements , just look at post from non believer ls in this thread for examples. So I don't think it would be out the realm of possibility that an atheist scientist would go looking for scientific facts to back up his beliefs.

Well, science does make some Biblical theories improbable. Evolution kind of punches Adam and Eve in the face.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Well, science does make some Biblical theories improbable. Evolution kind of punches Adam and Eve in the face.

if there is a god, then it is behind everything, including science.

Also, this is just me, but I think it's possible that Adam Eve were homo erectus, not sapien

 

[CaptainWagner]

Oh, no.

The separation of church and state isn't just about the abuse of religion. It's about protecting the rights of people to worship how they choose. The purpose to keep the state from imposing religion was indeed to prevent a particular faith from gaining power...but it was mostly about allowing people of different faiths to be able to continue to worship freely, without fear of the state forcing them to follow a particular faith.

It should also be noted that at the time, the founders did not force states to adopt this law. So while the federal government couldn't force people to worship in services, states could (and did) impose certain religious regulations, up until the late 1800s.

Exactly. Seperation of Church and State in Amera is commonly portrayed today as "protecting people from religion", when it's original purpose was to protect religion from the state.

 

[Greens]

if there is a god, then it is behind everything, including science.

Also, this is just me, but I think it's possible that Adam Eve were homo erectus, not sapien

Why not Homo Habilis?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Why not Homo Habilis?

their heights & brains. I feel like adam would have been a fairly big man.

 

[Greens]

their heights & brains. I feel like adam would have been a fairly big man.

So you believe evolution is true, but you cut it off at Homo Erectus? The species that have been discovered from before that time didn't exist?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

So you believe evolution is true, but you cut it off at Homo Erectus? The species that have been discovered from before that time didn't exist?

When did I say anything about "cutting evolution off" at homo erectus? I just think god conceived adam & eve with the most of care of any of its creations.

 

[Greens]

When did I say anything about "cutting evolution off" at homo erectus? I just think god conceived adam & eve with the most of care of any of its creations.

There was nobody before Adam and Eve. If you consider them to be Homo Erectus, that means the species before Homo Erectus didn't exist.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

There was nobody before Adam and Eve. If you consider them to be Homo Erectus, that means the species before Homo Erectus didn't exist.

Incorrect. I don't know where you're getting this notion from.

 

[Shikamaru]

Technically, science can't disprove God in the same way it can't disprove any other Gods like Zeus and Thor or beings like unicorns and leprechauns.

However, many of the things we once considered "God gaps" have now been filled in with science. We used to believe the Adam and Eve story, now not people take it literally due to evolution. We used to think the Earth was 6000 years old, now we know it's 4 billion years old. We used to think God was responsible for earthquakes, tsunamis, all kinds of natural atrocities. Now we know the science behind how those disasters happen.

So while we can't really disprove the idea of God, we've definitely significantly shrunk God in the long course of our history. The more gaps get filled in, the more the idea will shrink.

 

[Charlatan]

if Adam and Eve were the first people and Cain/Abel were their direct offspring then who are the "Sons of Man" in the land of Nod that Cain was sent to go live with when he was exiled from Eden? He found a wife there. So there obviously were humans before Adam and Eve. It's just that they didn't matter to the storyteller because they didn't believe in his "God" I suppose.

Another problem I have with the Bible is it says that God is Omniscient. (all knowing) So why did he tell the Israelites who fled Egypt not to kill (10 commandments) Not to steal (again 10 commandments) and then turn right around and do a 180 when Moses died and Joshua began speaking for "God". He told Moses he had prepared for them a land of milk and honey but he told Joshua to kill the people of Jericho and take all their stuff. (pretty convenient for Joshua because he was tired of looking for the city God had prepared for them you think?)
Is God schizophrenic or a liar?
Funny how when he speaks through people it's always something they want to hear or say eh? Like today's preachers who preach the prosperity gospel. Jesus said to cast all material things aside and devote your life to doing for others. That you could not worship mammon and God. But now we are to believe he's changed his mind.
Jesus said to pray in hiding not to be out shouting in the streets. Today we have mega churches and cable networks. With amusement parks,private jets and limos.
Someone tell me this is what Jesus would do.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

Technically, science can't disprove God in the same way it can't disprove any other Gods like Zeus and Thor or beings like unicorns and leprechauns.

the thing about those things are that they're mythical creatures. while some people will call god itself a myth, the "gods" known as zeus and thor were men with limitations, iirc.

However, many of the things we once considered "God gaps" have now been filled in with science. We used to believe the Adam and Eve story, now not people take it literally due to evolution. We used to think the Earth was 6000 years old, now we know it's 4 billion years old. We used to think God was responsible for earthquakes, tsunamis, all kinds of natural atrocities. Now we know the science behind how those disasters happen.

So while we can't really disprove the idea of God, we've definitely significantly shrunk God in the long course of our history. The more gaps get filled in, the more the idea will shrink.

I see what you're saying here, and if your point is that "because of god" is used as an inefficient copout scapegoat explanation for certain scientific phenomenons, I would agree. back in the day when people had fevers they would say that there is a demon inside of them. it's like c. lee said in part 1 - the more you know, the more you know you don't know. so while there can be a specific scientific explanation to something that we discover, it could lead to even more unanswered questions about the universe.

 

[Apollo]

Somebody, may have been Apollo, said that if parents told their children that God doesn't exist, like the Santa story, that they either keep believing or stop believing. I'm wondering, are there any adults that still believe in Santa Clause? As far as I know, literally every adult stops believing in Santa Clause at a very young age. Parents use logic and reasoning to explain why the Santa story is silly, and children eventually come to accept this. If we did the same for God, I doubt there would be a 50/50 split between believers and non-believers. More like 90/10, or even 100/0.

I Do. I see him every year at the mall. In fact there are thousands of them. Santa Still exists and will mostly still always exist as a symbol and idea. I mean the magical Santa that fly's around and lives at the north pole isn't real, but whose to say that version of Santa is better? When I was a kid I realized Santa Claus was just a symbol after seeing so many at the mall claiming to be the real Santa. I most likely saw hundreds of Santas throughout my childhood. I then thought to myself, which one is real? Are they all real? What makes the real Santa real? I was then taught about St. Nicolas and how the gift giving to poor children was the inspiration behind Santa Claus. After that people would continue that tradition of gift giving and dressing up as St. Nick. Then Coca-Cola transformed it into a giant magical man that flew in a sled with reindeer. Then I thought to myself the magical Santa Claus wasn't the true Santa Claus since the real guy lived and died many years ago. The second real Santa Claus are the men who lovingly & happily ( though I am sure some hate doing it ) take up the symbol and sits with kids for several hours every day for pictures while handing out small toys and candy. That guy is more real to me than anything Coca Cola made up or Tim Allen starred in. That is why parents still bring their kids to see Santa Claus because the symbol is real and the symbol is important. Even if someone doesn't believe in God the symbol of God is real, and for me it is 100 time more important than the symbol of Santa Claus. Not to mention there are countless logical reasons and philosophical arguments for the existence of God that the magical Santa doesn't have.

Even if parents all told their children there was no God. The idea of God would still be there. Whose to say one wouldn't be fascinated by the idea regardless of their atheistic upbringing? One might keep it a secret for fear of rejection. And whose to say his friend next door doesn't also have a fascination by the idea but also keeps it a secret. Whose to say the two won't share this fascinating idea. Perhaps they find more and more people that share the same idea. Once the children are set out into the real world their parents can't control all the religious and philosophical ideas that the children will eventually learn. Many may not want to, while many others would embrace these new ideas that were kept from them.
I know Jenn Fulwier was brought up in an atheist home. Her parents were both atheist and never mentioned religion or God when she grew up. She eventually became a dedicated Catholic. A friend of mine grew up in a Christian household, his mom and step dad were very religious and wanted him to go to church, once he became eighteen he went to live on his own and became a dedicated Atheist. I think a lot of it has to do with ones level of individuality mixed with their loyalty to their parents beliefs. For me I don't mirror exactly what my parents believe in. Some child that grow up into adults either mirror their parents exactly, or become complete opposite like my Atheist friend, or others become a mixed bag like my self.

 

[Shikamaru]

the thing about those things are that they're mythical creatures.

They're no more mythical than the God of the Abrahamic faiths. They all have about as much evidence going for them.

while some people will call god itself a myth, the "gods" known as zeus and thor were men with limitations, iirc.

As is the Abrahamic God in various parts of the Bible and the Quran. The knowledge and mindset he seems to possess have far more in common with those of a primitive man than of someone living today.

I see what you're saying here, and if your point is that "because of god" is used as an inefficient copout scapegoat explanation for certain scientific phenomenons, I agree. back in the day when people had fevers they would say that there is a demon inside of them. it's like c. lee said in part 1 - the more you know, the more you know you don't know. so while there can be a specific scientific explanation to something that we discover, it could lead to even more unanswered questions about the universe.

Indeed. But more unanswered questions about the universe don't necessarily equate to a God. Even then, as I stated previously, it still wouldn't necessarily point to the particular deity religions believe in. Such highly advanced being would be far beyond our understanding. He/she/it wouldn't be the primitive thinking God that condemns things like homosexuality and disbelievers, as the religious preachers would have people believe.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

They're no more mythical than the God of the Abrahamic faiths. They all have about as much evidence going for them.

I guess it depends on how someone decides to interpret what "god" is supposed to mean. The fact that zeus and thor and whomever else "gods" were men with specific titles and limitations to me is evidence of them being man made. after all, to this day, the belief system they are a part of is called a mythology.

As is the Abrahamic God in various parts of the Bible and the Quran. The knowledge and mindset he seems to possess have far more in common with those of a primitive man than of someone living today.

I dunno about the bible, but never in the Qur'an was god described as a man. God's procedures written the way they are as metaphors might make one misinterpret it in that way, but it is only written in that way for us to be able to understand it.

Indeed. But more unanswered questions about the universe don't necessarily equate to a God. Even then, as I stated previously, it still wouldn't necessarily point to the particular deity religions believe in. Such highly advanced being would be far beyond our understanding. He/she/it wouldn't be the primitive thinking God that condemns things like homosexuality and disbelievers, as the religious preachers would have people believe.

You're right, mysteries do not and should not automatically equate to there being a god but I think the mindsets of those who do, take their curiosity with that, er, "disclaimer" I suppose. In that, however much they discover about the universe, it's all still within the realm of god's creation, which is to say god is beyond this bubble that is the universe we are living in and discovering in. Not only that, but whatever a human discovers about the universe in their lifetime will still not even equate to 1% of it, and they may be missing out on several other facts along the way because the universe as we know it (and we don't even know it fully) is so complex.

 

[Godzilla2000]

If I might interject a notion here the discovery of the Higgs-Bosun particle should scientifically quantify the existence of the creationary force we call God on this planet.